Category Archives: common core education

Moving Parts Behind the Garland, Texas Attack

Posted on by

The FBI began investigation Elton Simpson, one of the 2 shooters in Garland, Texas. The other shooter is Nadir Soofi. They were roommates in Phoenix. Nadir Soofi graduated from the University of Utah and the International School of Islamic Studies in Pakistan. He was a Palestinian sympathizer and published anti-police propaganda.

The FBI paid an informant to gather information on Elton Simpson going back to 2006 and used wires to record conversations. The case was proven (trial memorandum here) as Simpson was well connected to al Shabaab and Simpson had purchased a ticket to travel to South Africa and had a visa to do so.

The case against Elton Simpson, nom de guerre, Ibrahim failed to gain any sentencing other than probation from an Arizona judge, Mary H. Murguia. She is a Clinton appointee and has a twin sister who is president of La Raza.

Hold on there is more. Not only is the Obama administration aggressively resettling refugees in America from Syria, Kenya, Iraq but the worst is Somalia. This speaks to real failed foreign policy. In fact Kenya just received $45 million for refugees. If you think there is a problem controlling the insurgency at the Southern border, this Refugee/Asylum problem is much bigger.

So, while the two dead Islamists from Arizona that were shot by a single officer in Garland, they were not refugees but lived with them in an apartment complex in Arizona, one of many across the country that are part of an approved contracted system by Health and Human Services in collaboration with the U.S. State Department. There is likely one in a town where you live.

Here is what you need to know.

The Garland shooters lived at Autumn Ridge Apartments in Phoenix, Arizona. That complex is owned by BH Management which holds properties across the country and works in tandem with HHS. There are several communities in Arizona, which is the same model as in Iowa, Idaho, S. Carolina, Maryland…all heck every state. These locations are all part of the Obama administration.

Contractors

RRP supports and advances successful refugee resettlement through the coordination of public and private resources.  Contractors are required to provide services in ways that respect the cultural and linguistic needs of clients.
Click here for a list of current contractors (47 KB PDF)

Federal Partners

Three federal agencies play key roles in the U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program.

Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) is responsible for the domestic program of refugee resettlement services – including cash and medical assistance and a broad range of social services.
ORR State Letters

Information for asylees seeking services supported by ORR is now available on the ORR website.

The U.S. Department of State coordinates resettlement policy, overseas processing, cultural orientation, transportation to the U.S., and the Reception & Placement program for newly arrived refugees.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security determines which applicants meet the requirements for refugee status and are admissible to the United States under U.S. law

 

A “Refugee” is defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act as: 

“…any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”  

Asylees, Cuban / Haitian entrants, certain Amerasians, Special Immigrant Visa holders and victims of severe forms of human trafficking are among the other humanitarian immigrants eligible for assistance and services under the Refugee Act. 

Okay, sorry but there is more. You may need a seat belt for this.

Garland, Texas: There’s Some History Here

 

Last night a free speech event in Garland, Texas was attacked. As this is written, two suspects are dead. One security guard was shot and released from the hospital after treatment for a minor wound.

The event, the “Mohammed Art Exhibit and Contest,” was reported here by Breitbart and here by the Dallas Morning News. It was sponsored by Pamela Geller of the American Freedom Defense Initiative and featured keynote speaker Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician and free speech advocate. Both were safe, with Geller finally contacted by Fox News where she was interviewed by anchor Kelly Wright.

The AFDI event was proceeded by another gathering in the same venue — the Curtis Culwell Center — in January. That event? It was titled the “Stand with the Prophet” rally, and was reported here as follows by the Washington Free beacon. Wrote the Free Beacon:

Muslim leaders from across America will gather in Texas this weekend to hold the annual Stand With the Prophet in Honor and Respect conference, a weekend forum that is being billed as a “movement to defend Prophet Muhammad, his person, and his message,” according to event information.

The Saturday event, which seeks to combat “Islamophobes in America” who have turned the Islamic Prophet Muhammad “into an object of hate,” according to organizers, comes just a week after radicalized Islamists in France killed 17 people.

The victims died in events that began with the shooting attack on French newspaper Charlie Hebdo for its satirical cartoons that skewered the prophet.

Organizers of the event place the blame for Islam’s bad reputation on the media and so-called American Islamophobes who have “invested at least $160 million dollars to attack our Prophet and Islam,” according to the conference web page.

Keynote speakers at the event will include Georgetown University professor John Esposito, founding director of the school’s Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, which has come under fire for, among other things, hosting 9/11 Truthers and a member of Egypt’s Nazi Party.

 

Also scheduled to attend the forum is controversial New York-based Imam Siraj Wahhaj, who was an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings trial. Wahhaj has called the FBI and CIA the “real terrorists” and expressed a desire for all Americans to become Muslim, according to the New York Post.

The “Stand With the Prophet” event was, in typical American style, protested by the AFDI free speech group, as announced here at the time on the Jihand Watch site of Robert Spencer. The site published a press release from AFDI that said in part of the protest:

NEW YORK, January 13: The human rights advocacy group the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) today announced that it will be holding a demonstration in defense of the freedom of speech on Saturday, January 17 in Garland, Texas, outside a conference on “Islamophobia” that seeks to stifle opposition to jihad terror and restrict the freedom of speech, working to further the same Islamic law that led to the Charlie Hebdo jihad massacre.

… AFDI President Pamela Geller said in a statement: “Saturday’s Stand With the Prophet event seeks to combat ‘Islamophobes in America’ — in line with Islamic supremacist groups’ longstanding objective of defaming, smearing and marginalizing anyone who opposes the jihad agenda. They say they want to defend Muhammad — which means to silence those who notice that defenders of Muhammad just murdered sixteen people in Paris, and tens of thousands worldwide since 9/11.”

“Our AFDI rally,” Geller added, “will stand for the freedom of speech against all attempts, violent and stealthy, to impose Islamic blasphemy laws on Americans and stifle criticism of Muhammad and Islam. As Muhammad’s followers kill more and more people, we need critics of him more than ever — and free people need to stand up against these underhanded attempts to stifle all criticism of Islam, including honest investigations of how jihadists use Islamic texts and teachings to justify Jew-hatred, violence, supremacism and oppression.”

Sunday night, the AFDI counter-event was held. In the same place. The event was described as follows by Breitbart:

Pamela Geller is planning a “Draw the Prophet” event in Garland, Texas in the same location as a Muslim group held a “Stand with the Prophet” conference in January. The First Annual Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest will be hosted by the Curtis Caldwell Center, which is owned and operated by the Garland Independent School District.

And up pulled a vehicle with two gun-wielding men, both now dead at the hands of the Garland police. Police were investigating whether there was a bomb in their vehicle, thus far with none found.

Contacted amid the chaos by Fox News, among other things Geller noted what one would think is the obvious: “A free speech conference is not controversial, shooting people is controversial…” As she also pointed out, that when the image of Jesus Christ on the cross is immersed in a jar of urine and presented as “art” in America — no one seeks to kill the artist.

Exactly.

It is impossible to look at this shooting as anything else than an attempt on Ms. Geller’s life and that of Geert Wilders, the founder of the Dutch Party for Freedom that has won seats in the Dutch parliament. As the attack unfolded, Geller said, audience members stood and sang “The Star-Spangled Banner.”

Question? Is this America anymore? Or is this now to be government by lynch mob? Whether in Baltimore or Garland, Texas?

And what will President Obama say? Will he stand up for the free speech of Americans? Not with some mealy mouthed if-this-than-that attempt at moral relativity — but with flat out, stand-up support for the Constitution and the right of free speech? News reports say the Garland police were prepared in case this kind of thing happened — but the question really should be: Why should police or anyone else have to prepare for a murderous assault on a free speech event?

The “Stand With the Prophet” rally participants had a right to hold their rally — just as the people of Baltimore had a right to peacefully protest the death of Freddie Gray. But no one has the right to burn and loot private property, much less to attack a peaceful event with the intent of killing the participants — in this case targeting Pam Geller and Geert Wilders.

When reached last night by Fox Pam Gellers said something else: “This is our most basic right…. [Now] this is a war… it’s here. It’s not Paris, it’s not Copenhagen — it’s Texas.”

And so it is. The question now is whether the American people — and the President of the United States — will sit by quietly and not speak out. The Islamists don’t get to judge.

*** Free Speech Matters:

 

 

Hey Congressman Cummings, Proud of This?

Posted on by

Rival gang member, Bloods (in red) and Crips (in blue) stood united alongside the Nation of Islam (right) and called for an end to the violence and rioting in the streets of Baltimore on Monday

Congressman Elijah Cummings who represents the very district of Baltimore that saw the destruction says he is proud of the protests, actually he said they HAD to protest. His beloved Baltimore was full of militant agitators that damaged buildings, cars and businesses, but yet this civil servant remains proud. He marched in full cadence and in solidarity. But going deeper, just who are those people he stood with and are they haters?

Amid Violence, Factions and Messages Converge in a Weary and Unsettled Baltimore
In part:

A couple of the young men wore bandannas to hide their identity. The young men identified themselves as members of the Crips, Bloods and Black Guerrilla Family street gangs. One of the Crips members, who called himself Charles, wearing a red Chicago Bulls Derrick Rose T-shirt, said the gang members had taken to the street because “there is only so far that you can push people into a corner.”

In extraordinary scenes in Baltimore, gang members from rivals the Crips and Bloods, accompanied by the Nation of Islam united to stop the violence on Monday

“We’re frustrated,” he continued, “and that’s why we’re out there in the streets.”

Then he described how he and some Bloods had stood in front of black-owned stores to protect them from looting or vandalism. He said they had made sure no black children, or reporters, were hit by rioters. They pointed them toward Chinese- and Arab-owned stores. Charles said Mr. Gray had brought gangs together.

“I rolled over here on a truck, and I was the only Crip and everybody else was Bloods. And they didn’t do anything to me. We’re together in this.”

Read the full article here.

From the DailyMail: One Bloods member told WBAL: ‘Although our cause is righteous, we cannot control every person, every gang in the city.’ 

It had emerged on Monday morning, that three of the city’s most violent gangs – Black Guerrilla Family, Crips and Bloods – were apparently forming an alliance to ‘take out’ police officers. 

According to Police Commissioner Anthony Batts, the department received intelligence that the rivals held a meeting in which they planned to kill one police officer each.

Black Guerrilla Family breeds some of the city’s most violent convicts. The man who killed two NYPD cops in December last year, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, was believed to have ties to the deadly group.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3059143/The-Wire-Unimaginable-scenes-Baltimore-s-Crips-Bloods-Black-Guerrilla-Family-Nation-Islam-unite-black-men-stop-violence.html#ixzz3YvWePluS
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Obama’s Future After White House

Posted on by

Obama Says He Might Go Back to Community Organizing

One day when he’s done wrangling with the Iranians and congressional Republicans, President Barack Obama plans to get back to where he once belonged.

The most powerful man in the world wants to return to community organizing after he hands over the keys to the White House in 2017, he told middle-school students at a public library in Washington’s Anacostia neighborhood today.

“I’ll be done being president in a couple of years and I’ll still be a pretty young man,” he said. “And so I’ll go back to doing the kinds of work I was doing before, just trying to find ways to help people.”

 

Federalize Policing with Soviet Style Tactics

Posted on by

Soviet style tactics:

‘Another fundamental change is underway but not such that you would notice unless you understand the conduits of people and activists groups. Law enforcement across the country is subservient to mayors and mayors manage the money flows and rules of engagement in all communities. One must look closely at mayors and their operational playbooks as noted in the case of Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, mayor of Baltimore. She is walking in cadence with Al Sharpton at National Action Network who himself has unfettered access to the White House as he is calling for officially federalizing police.

Then it must be noted that the ACLU is part of the conduit as this week that organization paid for and developed a smart phone app called ‘MOBILE JUSTICE’. “We want to multiply the number of cameras that can be trained on police officers at any time,” said Hector Villagra, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California. “They need to know that anything they do could be seen by the entire world.”  Users will have to open the app on their Android or Apple devices before filming, ACLU officials said. When the recording stops, it automatically sends a copy to the ACLU’s server and keeps the video on the phone. A text report will then pop up, allowing users to explain in writing what they saw but allowing them to remain anonymous if desired. ACLU officials said their legal team would screen the reports and review any videos they believed might show problematic activity.

So who would use this smart phone app? Easy answer to the question. Those already part of yet another organization are part of the conduit, ‘WeCopWatch‘, maybe you have seen the t-shirts. It is even more curious that members of this group are also part of yet many others that include those that support the ‘FreePalestine‘ movement and that of Black Intifada.

Blair Anderson
Project Coordinator for Michigan, Ohio, Illinois
Blair is a Black Panther who lived through COINTELPRO era of the Black Power movement of the sixties. Blair is also the head of the WeCopwatch elder council which helps provide guidance for WeCopwatch in matters of organizing, tactics and strategies.

David Whitt
Project Coordinator for St Louis County
Whitt formed the Canfield Watchmen in the neighborhood where Mike Brown was killed. They have been actively copwatching, as well as training and distributing cameras to the public.

Jacob Crawford
Project Coordinator Support.
Crawford is a long time Copwatcher. He is assisting on the back end in supporting Copwatch expansion projects.  Do the posters below look familiar? Same ones the Islamists in America use as well. They also have a tip sheet that explains what to do if the FBI comes to their door.

253497_176424112415369_4847694_n

They are using GoFundMe to raise money to purchase go-pro cameras, but one should wonder if GoFundMe will take down that account as they often do for patriot requests.

The sad question now is just how will police forces across the country react? They are under siege.

 

If Obama’s Legal Team Wins, Your Church May Lose

Posted on by

If you have never been to the Supreme Court to hear cases argued, they are fascinating. This week, there is an case regarding marriage of gays. The oral presentations and responses by the U.S. Solicitor General and his staff would have you shaking your head. So, if you would like to read the transcripts which is for sure suggested, here is the document.

But when it comes to the SCOTUS decision on fundamentally redefining the institution of marriage, it could trickle down to your personal church losing. That fundamental transformation of America is underway, without so much as a whimper for you.

Obama Admin: Religious Organizations Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status If Supreme Court Creates Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage

When arguing before the Supreme Court, a lawyer normally takes pains to convince the Justices that ruling in his or her favor in that particular case would not have dramatic consequences elsewhere. In Hobby Lobby, for example, Paul Clement urged that exempting his clients from part of HHS’s contraceptive mandate would not open the doors to a flood of other exemptions. Or in DC v. Heller, Alan Gura argued that the Court’s recognition of the Second Amendment’s personal right to own ordinary firearms would not entitle people to own “machine guns” or “plastic, undetectable handguns.”

A similar dynamic was seen, sometimes, at yesterday’s oral arguments in the same-sex marriage cases, Obergefell v. Hodges. Lawyers arguing that same-sex couples should have a federal constitutional right to state marriage licenses suggested that establishing such a right would not result in ministers being forced to conduct same-sex marriages. “No clergy is forced to marry any couple that they don’t want to marry,” the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Mary Bonauto told Justice Scalia. “We have those protections” under the First Amendment.

But given that such concerns surround this case — say, for wedding photographers or cake bakers — it was rather stunning to see Solicitor General Verrilli leave open the door to what could be the most significant consequences to eventually flow from the creation of a constitutional right to same sex marriage: namely, that religious organizations could eventually lose their tax-exempt status if they do not embrace the new constitutional right.

Such concerns are based on the Supreme Court’s approach in Bob Jones University v. United States (1983), where the Court held that the IRS could strip two private religious schools of their tax-exempt status because the schools maintained racially discriminatory policies abhorrent under the Fourteenth Amendment. Bob Jones University, for example, prohibited its students from inter-racial dating.

“Entitlement to tax exemption depends on meeting certain common-law standards of charity,” wrote the Court; “namely, that an institution seeking tax-exempt status must serve a public purpose and not be contrary to established public policy.” To receive a tax exemption, the institution must “demonstrably serve and be in harmony with the public interest.” And because, in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education thirty years earlier, America had adopted “a firm national policy to prohibit racial segregation and discrimination in public education,” neither the Tax Code nor the First Amendment allowed the schools to receive tax benefits while maintaining their repugnant racist policies. The Court’s analysis was correct in that case, given how well-established and widely respected the constitutional right against racial discrimination was. But how would the IRS and courts apply such themes in other cases, involving other constitutional rights?

To that end, in recent years some have asked whether the Supreme Court’s recognition of same-sex marriage as a fundamental constitutional right could have similar impacts on religious organizations that refuse to participate in or otherwise support same-sex marriage.

Liberal proponents of same-sex marriage rights have tried to downplay those concerns. Writing in Slate two years ago, Emily Bazelon argued that States’ recognition of same-sex marriages would not affect religious organizations’ tax-exempt status, at least not until “we’re as united about the pernicious nature of anti-gay discrimination as we are about racial discrimination.” (“Maybe we should be there,” she added, “But I don’t need to tell you we’re not.” Not yet.)

But that is, of course, the core theme in favor of same-sex marriage rights: that a constitutional right to same-sex marriage is no less fundamental than a right to inter-racial marriage. It has been at the heart of same-sex marriage litigation for years.

Surely the question of IRS tax exemptions came up at the “moot court” practice sessions preparing the Solicitor General for yesterday’s oral argument. If the Administration wanted to assure the Justices that the IRS — either its current leadership, or under a future Administration — would not strip, say, Catholic charities of their tax-exempt status, then the Solicitor General would have a well-rehearsed answer. Especially in light of the Obama administration’s treatment of conservative groups seeking tax exemptions, not to mention the Administration’s efforts — rejected unanimously by the Court — to use federal regulations to trump religious’ schools doctrinal authority.

But when Justice Alito posed this obvious question to the Solicitor General, Mr. Verrilli offered no reassurances:

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?

GENERAL VERRILLI: You know, I — I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I — I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is — it is going to be an issue.

Wait, the tax-exempt status of nonprofit organizations is “certainly going to be an issue?”

One would have preferred that the administration could have sorted this “issue” out ahead of time. If the scenario really were as far-fetched as Bazelon and others suggest, then it would have been easy for the Obama administration to simply say so.

And so it will fall to the Justices to grapple with the issue before announcing any broad new constitutional right. They took such pains in Hobby Lobby, in Heller, and in other such cases. We can only hope they’ll do it again here.